Posted on 06/29/2016 12:44:10 PM PDT by Kaslin
Years ago, in another lifetime, I flew the mighty F-4S Phantom II in the jet route structure. Several times I flew high enough for the engine exhaust to condense in the minus 60°F atmosphere. At 30,000 feet, I’d look in the mirrors on the canopy bow and watch a pair of thick contrails swirl behind me, laying down a set of unmistakable tracks proving that I was no longer just turning jet fuel into jet noise but I was leaving a trail visible for all to see for miles and miles. Some people on the ground, primarily those on the political left, have suggested my contrails were actually “chemtrails,” that they were some wild Petri dish concoction consisting of chemical or biological agents that were being deliberately sprayed for some sinister purpose, like a Bond villain, on an ignorant general public. I was shocked to learn that somehow the enlisted guy who refueled my jet with JP-5 was in on the conspiracy and was dispensing some nefarious additional chemicals from his R-11 fuel truck. When I became aware of the “chemtrail controversy” years later, it proved there are some strange people in America. That when you don’t have enough facts or understanding of the basic science of condensation, I guess you make up something. Who doesn’t love a good conspiracy when the facts are just boring?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sigh. If I have to believe that, it means I have to repudiate every single facet of what I believe to be good about America, and worse.
I would have to be a dupe. In that case, at least the average Soviet citizen would have understood the nature of their government better than I understood that of my own, and I can’t accept that. So unless someone has proof positive, I will not believe it.
And by the way, if I have never said it, thank you for serving.
RayChuang88 wrote: “The normal 9K33 Osa system includes that tracked vehicle that is quite big. But what if an enterprising terrorist with good technical knowledge was able to install one launch rail and the radar system so it easily fits inside a pleasure boat?”
You can play ‘what-if’ all day long. The 9K33 is on wheels. It has an acquisition radar, a target tracking radar, missile tracking receivers, and missile uplink transmitters. In addition, you’ll need the displays and control mechanisms and a crew of five. You’ll also need a rather large generator, a couple of missile rails, etc. Blast shields to protect the launch vessel. Oh, and a stabilization system too. You have to track and transmit missile guidance to the missiles. If the launch vessels is rolling and pitching, you can lose the missile. It all adds up.
Yes, it is theoretically possible but this wouldn’t be a back yard garage project. It would take a large number of people, many years, and a boat load of money to do what you’re suggesting. It would take a rather large boat to carry all this.
Now, this is where this all falls apart. You’re not going to put this contraption together in the US. It’s too large. It would be noticed. You’ll have to build it somewhere a long ways away. Now, not only do you need a small ship, it has to be ocean going with the capability of crossing the ocean. Now, you’re talking 150 feet or so. Certainly not a pleasure craft.
I don’t play this game. I worked in missile systems development, testing, evaluation, and production for forty years.
Should have copied you in my response to RayChuang88 above.
I’ve not seen any experts in air defense weapons system support the shoot-down theory. Anyone with any technical expertise would find those theories ludicrous.
BTW, back when this happened, someone posted here that it would be easy to keep the crew of a Navy ship from talking, all one would have to do is order them not to talk. Of course, such an order would be illegal and impossible to enforce. Another ludicrous theory.
DesertRhino wrote: ““And the warheads on a MANPADS are about the same size as a hand grenade, rather small to blow the front end off a 747.”
I’m also a bit skeptical about the ‘eyewitness’ descriptions of “streak of light”. I don’t remember any of these descriptions describing a bright light source (missile motor) ascending into the aircraft. A “streak of light” can be an illuminated line with no direction, no description of whether the light is rising or falling.
Were these “eyewitnesses” looking out to sea and saw a rising light? Or, did they hear an explosion and then look out to sea where they saw a line of light in the air? If they were looking out to sea, I haven’t seen any reports of a “launch event”. When you light the booster motor off, it’s a rather big deal. Why didn’t anyone, particularly the pilots of aircraft following TWA 800, report a very bright flash on the sea surface followed by a rising ball of light?
Thanks for calling me feebleminded, I appreciate the rhetoric. Now that you’ve explained the equation.. sorta... Tell me what this has to do with chemtrails ?
There was another photo the showed the entire front of the aircraft, It struck me odd that there was no outward deformation. To many flat panels in these photos.
The Iranians had that capability and are good with "Bass boats". Just sayin'. SS1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.